Agriculture

From about the seventeenth to the early twelfth centuries BCE, the Hittite kingdom and empire drew its food and much of its wealth from farming and livestock. Its core lay in central Anatolia, while at its height Hittite power also extended into northern Syria. Agriculture therefore supported both local communities and institutions that governed a far-reaching state. At Hattusa, detailed archaeological studies reveal how cultivation and storage supported the capital. This account concerns the Late Bronze Age state, not the earlier Assyrian merchant colonies in Anatolia or the later Iron Age states sometimes called Syro-Hittite.

On this page4 sections

Crops and the demands of cultivation

Grain was the foundation of food production. Hittite agriculture included barley and several kinds of wheat. Archaeological work at Hattusa has identified hulled barley and hulled wheats, grains whose husks remain attached and require further processing. Barley could produce a crop on less productive soils, while the range of cereals gave farmers more than one option. At Hattusa, evidence also points to emmer, spelt, and millet, as well as pulses including lentils, peas, chickpeas, and beans. Fruit and other crops supplemented grain production.

A 2020 study combined stored crop remains, their chemical signatures and weeds harvested with the grain. It identified relatively extensive production: broad areas supplied hulled wheat and barley without the intensive inputs used on heavily tended plots. Differences between stores suggest produce gathered from different farming communities. The sixteenth-century silo complex shows the state collecting part of these harvests as tax.

Central Anatolia’s farming conditions were not identical to those of the empire’s northern Syrian territories. Hattusa provides a concrete example of how the state collected and stored crops, rather than proof that every province cultivated the same plants or followed the same arrangements.

Land, service, and agricultural labor

Royal grants transferred fields and other productive property to selected recipients. Such gifts could reward service and strengthen loyalty, while other holdings carried obligations to supply labour or military service. Temples and households also used agricultural land. The relationship between possession and duties depended on the particular grant or holding.

Land-grant tablets bore royal seals and recorded the property transferred. Keeping a document gave a recipient evidence of legitimate tenure and allowed the palace to preserve a record of its grant. These transactions connected the wealth of fields and estates to the relationships through which the court governed.

Producing food required a workforce, and military activity affected its availability. Campaigns took people away from agricultural work, while deaths in war could further strain production. Hittite rulers also brought captives back from campaigns; these people were an important source of labor in food production and could help replace population losses. The evidence thus points to a state that could draw workers into agriculture, but also risked reducing the workforce through the military demands it imposed.

Not all agricultural labor was organized in the same way. Workers could receive a portion of the harvest as payment, rather than only a measured payment in metal. Temples also held land and relied on agricultural resources. Farming therefore supported households as well as royal and religious institutions.

Livestock, labor, and transport

Cattle, sheep, and goats were central to animal husbandry, with pigs playing a smaller role in the evidence from Hattusa. Herds supplied meat, while animals also provided other valuable products. The ages of slaughtered animals found at Hattusa suggest that sheep and goats were often kept into their second year and cattle longer. This pattern is consistent with raising them for products such as wool and milk before slaughter. Cattle could also work in the fields.

Horses, donkeys, and mules served different purposes from the main food-producing herds. Horses were used for riding and pulling chariots, while donkeys and mules carried loads. These animals helped connect agricultural production to centers of government and consumption. Around Hattusa, small rivers were not navigable, so movement to and from the capital depended on land routes.

Granaries and the movement of food

Hattusa’s underground stores could retain crops beyond the harvest season. A sixteenth-century silo complex held large stocks of wheat and barley. Separate Late Bronze Age pits at Büyükkaya included chambers large enough to hold hundreds of tonnes. Several stores allowed provisions to be gathered at the capital and retained as a reserve.

Sealing grain stores protected their contents from air and pests and could preserve grain for years. Such reserves helped buffer supplies against poor harvests and made it possible to hold food at administrative centers. Grain stored in this way could support the capital and the institutions based there, rather than being consumed only where it was grown.

Temples were among the institutions with their own storage and food requirements. At Hattusa, rooms around the Great Temple contained large storage jars, some with capacities of up to 2,000 litres. They held provisions such as grain, pulses, oil, and wine. These stores supported the temple’s religious work and its staff. Palace and state administration likewise depended on agricultural surplus. Maintaining armies and campaigns placed additional demands on that same supply, while pulling labor away from food production. Stored grain and other provisions supplied people whose work took them away from producing their own food.

For the wider setting, see Hittite historical context.